2000 PLP 186 (PLC)
TARIQ IKRAM and 2 others Versus NAEEMA BEGUM
| Citation | 2000 PLP 186 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Dr. Tanzil-ur-Rehman, Chairman |
| Parties | TARIQ IKRAM and 2 others Versus NAEEMA BEGUM |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 186 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 186 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal bench comprising: Dr. Tanzil-ur-Rehman, Chairman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 186 (PLC) (TARIQ IKRAM and 2 others Versus NAEEMA BEGUM). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shafique Ahmed Qureshi for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 25-A(3) & 38(3-a)
Failure of employer to give effect to decision of Labour Court
Pending application of employee filed under S.25-A(8) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 whereupon charge was framed, employer filed application under S.249-A, Cr.P.C. which was dismissed by Labour Court
Charge framed by Labour Court on application of employee being not groundless on merits, revision application filed by employer against order of Labour Court, was without any force and was dismissed. Muhammad Latif Saghar for Applicants.
Judgment & Decree
Shafique Ahmed Qureshi for Respondent. This is a revision application filed by the employer whereby the order, dated 20‑5‑1998 passed by the learned Sindh Labour Court No‑IV. Karachi, on his application under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. has been challenged. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Latif Saghar, learned counsel for the applicants and also Mr. Shafique Ahmed Qureshi, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the applicants took me through his objections filed in the learned Labour Court to the application of the respondent under section 25‑A(8) of I.R.O., 1969. Various allegations made in the application under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. seem to be based on facts, which require evidence of the parties to prove or disprove the said allegations. Mr. Muhammad Latif Saghar counsel for the applicants submitted that the application under section 25‑A(8), of I.R.O., 1969 was filed about a year back and the matter has been lingering on for one reason or the other. But, looking to the diary of the learned Labour Court, I find that the matter lingered on mostly because of the absence of the applicant accused. The impugned order does not seem to be suffering from any illegality. Looking to the facts of the case it cannot be said that the charge framed by the learned Labour Court is groundless on merits. The revision application is without any force and is dismissed accordingly. Since the application under section 25‑A(8), of I.R.O. 1969, is pending for over a year, I direct the learned Labour Court to record evidence of the parties in the matter and decide it within 2 months. By consent the date of hearing in the Labour Court is fixed 26‑1‑1999. Parties are directed to appear on the above date before the learned Labour Court. H.B.T./290‑K/Lab. (Trib.) Revision dismissed.